Liberal Humanism

Points #2 and #5 that are described in the liberal humanism chapter seem contrary to each other. Number two states that whatever text you read has its own meaning within itself. This own meaning than speaks to each of us due to our individuality. Yet, my question is, how can there ever be a true reading critic? Or, how can you have critics that are more "correct" than others? 

I guess I am just confused, because if the book has its own meaning and we all have our own individuality and each interpret a book on our own personalities/experiences, etc. how can a book truly be interpreted by "experts"? 

Yet, we also seem to somehow interpret and see similar meanings in books. Are these points/meanings that we see in the book, the only meaning we can consider valid? (Because it is the only meaning that is universal?) 

I think that these universal "truths" we read in books can only be considered good criticism when others also acknowledge these truths.